A good start, but how do we prevent guns from ending up in the hands of felons, while simultaneously protecting the rights of responsible gun owners?
That might actually be impossible. Cracking down harder on black market gun dealers with undercover cops, CIs and the like might lessen the problem, but I don't know how to make it go away completely.
Here's my idea: Instead of licensing guns, we license gun owners. Any eligible (non-felon) citizen who wishes to own a gun will be required to pass a basic safety, handling, and marksmanship course. The course would be designed by the NRA and approved by the federal government. Once the course is passed, the citizen may then purchase firearms freely...as many as they want, without a background check, without a waiting period, and without registering the guns. Like a driver's license, there would be certain classes of guns. A basic license would allow for the purchase of rifles, shotguns, and handguns, while other licenses -available only to those with proper training- would allow for citizens to own weapons such as fully automatic rifles and submachine guns. Now, obviously this is just a rough idea, and probably kinda flawed, but I do think it strikes a decent balance between preserving Second Amendment rights and helping keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
That would probably be a requirement before getting the license for the automatic weapons. For a basic gun license, mental health wouldn't be factored in unless the applicant was flagged as a risk by a doctor or psychiatrist. We don't require mental health exams before getting a driver's license, so requiring one before the gun license seems a bit Big Brother-y to me.
It seems anti-gun Democrats are being urged to be more subtle and deceptive in their wording on this issue by Gabby Giffords and her PAC. I don't think these new tactics are accidental, as the article goes on to state:
There are more than 300,000,000 guns in the United States, or approximately one gun for every man, woman, and child in the US. In 2013, gun violence killed 11,208 people and injured 73,505. So... something's not adding up here. How, in any just society, could anyone think it right or fair to punish a vast majority for the actions of a small minority?
I already pointed out that gun violence (and violent crime in general) has been on a downward trajectory in the United States since the early 1990's twice on these forums. I also pointed out that "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" are available in other countries (Switzerland, Czech Republic, etc.), and in spite of this, mass shootings (and gun violence in general) are quite uncommon over there. These facts fatally undermine your contentions; it isn't an accident that they have been repeatedly brushed under the carpet. Cherry picking fallacies are commonly employed by various gun restriction and gun ban advocates, and like all logical fallacies, they only serve to weaken the arguments they are making.
I have not read this entire thread, this comment just gave me a little thought: couldn't you abandon safety controls at airports with exactly the same reasoning?
I wouldn't consider that to be analogous, considering that "safety controls" have been put in place for firearm purchases in the United States in various cases. For instance, in my home state of Minnesota, you cannot be issued a permit to carry a pistol unless you pass a training course (covers relevant laws and a live fire marksmanship test) and a police background check. Federal law prohibits felons, the mentally defective, fugitives from justice, those convicted of domestic violence, etc. from owning firearms. I think the list of prohibited persons should be expanded to include other types of people (sociopaths, those with a history of unsafe firearm handling, etc.). Some states (20, I believe) have safe storage laws regarding firearms and children (criminal penalties for those who leave a firearm where a child can easily access it), but that should be adopted nationwide. I would agree that there is room for improvement when it comes to basic "safety controls" in the United States and firearms access, but that is an entirely different thing than banning certain types of firearms for looking "scary" and the like.
Okay... You got all that from the comic? (Since your post was a reply to the comic.) Where in it does it talk about your points? To sum up, it says: You won, no one will take your guns People will use guns to massacre other people We all have to deal with it as the price for having the guns What of those is incorrect?
It comes off as a condensed reiteration of what you have stated previously. The first point is debatable and hasn't been decisively settled, and the NRA isn't doing any favors by making gun owners looking like right-wing militants playing survivalist games out in the woods. There was a federal "assault weapons" ban from 1994-2004 (the attempts to revive it haven't stopped), and other states in the US, such as California and New York, have been passing increasingly draconian gun laws. In fact, California recently placed a ban on any magazine holding more than ten cartridges. Additionally, they recently classified any semi-automatic rifle feeding from a detachable magazine to be an "assault weapon". Certain types of firearms are in fact effectively being "taken away" from civilians with no criminal backgrounds. I wish I could say that my side has decisively won this issue (there is a difference between winning the logical argument and legislation; the latter is ultimately a question of interests). I am just hoping that Hispanics, blacks, millennials, etc. don't end up identifying gun ownership with right-wing ideology, as the victory of anti-gun politicians is a foregone conclusion if that ends up being the case. The second and third points clearly imply that merely having legal firearms is responsible for such massacres, and that such things are a "price" to be paid for such a thing. Even though such things occur far more rarely in other countries with "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines than they do in the United States. Personally, I am far more interested in looking at poverty, lack of access to healthcare (including the mental type), and such than a specific type of firearm when one of these events occurs. The latter option I have mentioned is not brought to the table when these debates emerge on the media and in society, as the billionaire oligarchs and their political parties have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Jeffries says he is making jokes that shouldn't be taken seriously, yet says he is also making "good points"? No matter how one looks at things, these "good points" don't hold water: Right off the bat, it is incorrect to say that Port Arthur was the biggest massacre on Earth (certain types of firearms also remain legal in Australia). In fact, before Port Arthur, Timothy McVeigh killed 168 and wounded 684 others by using a truck bomb (the recent terrorist attack in Nice, France, also exceeded Port Arthur with the use of a truck). Jim Jeffries also fails to take into account the fact that gun violence in Australia was on the decline before the 1996 ban was enacted. Jeffries says he doesn't like "bull*squee!* arguments" and "lies"? Well, he employs one such "bull*squee!*" argument (a classic straw man fallacy) when he says the "only reason" to like guns is "*squee!* off, I like guns!" People owning them for hunting and self-defense in themselves undermine that contention. And even liking something in itself doesn't really reinforce what he is saying, given that when we compare the crime statistics of various countries around the world (both with strict bans and lenient laws), we get a picture of no conclusive evidence linking firearm ownership to violent crime. Jim Jeffries is also ignorant of the fact that assault rifles are already so strictly regulated in the United States that ordinary civilians cannot get their hands on them (Ronald Reagan closed the NFA registry in 1986 on full-auto and selective fire guns; it costs thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars, per gun after one clears the stringent federal background checks). He doesn't employ any evidence stating that you are "80% more likely to shoot yourself" (and perhaps implying, in an asinine manner, that anyone with depression is inherently unstable and suicidal). As for a firearm around the home in a defensive scenario, it doesn't actually take long to get one; you don't have to constantly be "at the ready." Additionally, a CDC study commissioned by Obama backfired on him; it found that there are an estimated 500,000 to 3 million defensive uses of a firearm per year in the US. Jeffries also fails to understand that there are variants of gun safes and security boxes that can be opened very quickly (biometric with a keyed lock as a backup). He does make mention of the NRA, and I will boldly say they are a scam organization that regularly resorts to fear mongering to increase gun sales and their number of dues paying members (recall the panics they induced after Obama's inauguration and after Sandy Hook, even though nothing had a chance of passing on a federal level). I also personally avoid the "Second Amendment" argument, as it is one of the weakest arguments one can make in favor of gun ownership (Jeffries is correct in that it could legally be repealed). Slave ownership and gun ownership are not remotely analogous. There may be problems with one person "ruining" things for the reset, but there is also a difference between putting some regulations on something and banning it entirely.
Really, I don't think that anyone from outside the United States has any right to an opinion about our gun laws. I'm just sayin'.
If you are a sane person, without a background of violence, or a criminal record, you can have your guns. I don't think that people who want to investigate gun laws are trying to prohibit all gun use. In the case of Orlando, the man was a previously determined dangerous person, and he managed to get an assault rifle, which is a weapon that no person outside of the militia needs. I think that gun laws definitely need to be reviewed. It should have been pretty f*cking difficult for that man to get an assault rifle. People are buying guns with virtually no investigation. People are dying at an alarming rate. Hate crimes are occurring every day. Instead of doing anything about it, we act cowardly, and refuse to even consider the idea of maybe restricting who gets a gun. Bad people are getting these weapons. We shouldn't feel the need to carry a gun with us when we are dancing at a club because we worry that the evening will end in manslaughter.
I want to feel safe going to the shops, or the cinema, or anywhere for that manner without some psycho carrying weapons. It's just a cultural difference, sure, I can accept that. But before all this needs to be sorted out, I think that the US needs to have the guts to do something about this without bending over for the NRA
